Sep 27, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
Today, at the close of the 42nd regular session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the ICJ and other NGOs highlighted key acheivements and failures.
The joint civil society statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) on behalf of the group, read as follows (not all text could be read aloud due to time limits):
“The Council reaffirmed that reprisals can never be justified. Council members rejected attempts to weaken the text including attempts to delete the references to the roles of the Assistant Secretary-General and the Human Rights Council Presidents. The resolution listed key trends such as the patterns of reprisals, increasing self-censorship, the use of national security arguments and counter-terrorism strategies by States as justification for blocking access to the UN, acknowledged the specific risks to individuals in vulnerable situations or belonging to marginalized groups, and called on the UN to implement gender-responsive policies to end reprisals. The Council called on States to combat impunity and to report back to it on how they are preventing reprisals, both online and offline. The Bahamas and the Maldives responded to this call during the interactive dialogue and we encourage more States to follow their good practice. We also encourage States to follow the good practice of Germany and Costa Rica in raising specific cases of reprisals. The Council also welcomed the role of the Assistant Secretary-General and invited the General Assembly to step up its efforts to address reprisals and ensure a coherent system-wide response.
We welcome the creation of a Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on Venezuela as an important step towards accountability for the grave human rights violations documented by the High Commissioner. We urge Venezuela to cooperate with the FFM and to honor the commitments they have made during this session, including by allowing OHCHR unfettered access to all regions and detention centers and implementing their recommendations. Cooperation and constructive engagement and measures for international accountability and justice should be seen as complementary and mutually reinforcing.
We welcome the renewal and strengthening of the mandate of the Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen, sending a clear message to parties to the conflict – and to victims – that accountability is at the center of the mandate, and providing a crucial and much-needed deterrent to further violations and abuses. States should support the recommendations made by the GEE in their recent report, including prohibiting the authorization of transfers of, and refraining from providing, arms that could be used in the conflict to such parties; and clarifying the GEE’s role to collect and preserve evidence of abuses.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Cambodia, but regret that calls to strengthen the mandate of the OHCHR to monitor and report on the situation have been ignored. We regret that the resolution fails to accurately depict the continuing crackdowns on civil society and the severity and scale of recent attacks on the political opposition.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry on Burundi. Its work is vital as the country heads towards elections in 2020. The Burundian Government should desist from denial and insults, and should cooperate with the Commission and other UN bodies and mechanisms.
We welcome that the EU and OIC have jointly presented a resolution on Myanmar requesting the High Commissioner to report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Fact-Finding Mission at HRC 45. However, the international community needs to take stronger action to ensure accountability for and cessation of grave international crimes, in particular by referring Myanmar to the ICC and imposing a global arms embargo – and by acting on the FFM’s reports, including those on economic interests of the military and on sexual and gender-based violence in Myanmar and the gendered impact of its ethnic conflicts.
The joint EU/OIC resolution on Myanmar welcomes the FFM report on the military’s economic interests, which identifies companies contributing to abuses. The High Commissioner, however, has still not transmitted the database of companies facilitating Israel’s illegal settlements more than 2 and a half years after its mandated release. The High Commissioner pledged in March to fulfil the mandate “within the coming months”. The ongoing unexplained and unprecedented delays have become a matter of credibility, for both the High Commissioner and the HRC. Mr. President, we request that you confer with the High Commissioner and advise as soon as possible when this important Council mandate will be fulfilled.
‘Cautious optimism’ best defines our approach to Sudan. While this year’s resolution, which welcomes the peaceful popular uprising, renews the Independent Expert’s mandate, supports the opening of an OHCHR country office, and highlights the role and needs of civil society, is an improvement on 2018, significant challenges remain. Ensuring accountability for the perpetrators of grave human rights and humanitarian law violations should be a central priority for the new Government, and the Council should assist in this regard.
We regret the lack of Council action on Kashmir and urge the Council, as well as India and Pakistan, to act on all the recommendations in the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
On terrorism and human rights, we are deeply disappointed that Mexico and other States have partially acquiesced in attempts by Egypt to dilute or distract the work of the Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism away from its appropriate focus on human rights violations while countering terrorism and human rights of victims of terrorism. We regret that States have asked the Special Rapporteur to spend the limited time and resources of the mandate, to comment on the overbroad concept of the “effects” of terrorism, by which Egypt and some other States seem primarily to mean macroeconomic, industrial, and investment impacts, rather than the human rights of individual victims. The length to which States seem willing to put the existing Special Rapporteur’s mandate at risk, in the name of protecting it, while failing even to incorporate stronger consensus text on human rights issues included in the most recent merged parallel resolution at the General Assembly, suggests that the merger of the previous Mexican and Egyptian thematic resolutions no longer holds any real promise of positive results for human rights.
We welcome the adoption of the resolution on the question of the death penalty, which is an important reflection of the movement towards the international abolition of this cruel punishment. Significantly, this resolution reiterates and affirms the position of international law that the abolition of the death penalty is an irrevocable commitment and that an absolute prohibition exists to guard against its reintroduction. We also welcome the acknowledgement of the ‘most serious crimes’ threshold that acts to restrict the death penalty, in States that have yet to abolish it, only to crimes of extreme gravity; this resolution plainly identifies that criminal conduct that does not result directly and intentionally in death can never meet the threshold test and can never serve as a basis for the use of the death penalty. We are very pleased to acknowledge that the adoption of this resolution is complimentary to the General Assembly’s resolution calling for an international moratorium on the death penalty and, together, they serve to illustrate the advancing global commitment to abolition.
We welcome the Council’s renewed attention to the protection of the right to privacy in the digital age: fully integrating human rights into the design, development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence, machine learning technologies, automated decision-making, and biometric systems, is essential to safeguard not only the right to privacy, but also to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, and economic social and cultural rights.
On human rights in the administration of justice, we welcome the focus in this year’s resolution on concrete measures to prevent and respond to violence, death and serious injury in situations of deprivation of liberty, which illustrates the potential of thematic resolutions to set out specific practical, legal and policy steps that can be drawn on by governments, civil society, and other stakeholders to have real positive impact at the national level.
We commend Australia for its leadership on Saudi Arabia, as well as the other States who stood up for women’s rights activists and accountability. We urge more States to live up to their commitment to defend civil society and sign the statement in the coming 2 weeks.
We appreciate the attention paid by individual governments to the situation in China, including the dire situation facing Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims; the crackdown on human rights defenders, including those working to draw attention to violations of economic, social and cultural rights; and the suppression of fundamental freedoms in Tibet. However, we deplore that the Council and many of its members have once again failed to take decisive action to ensure monitoring and reporting on the human rights situation in the country, especially Xinjiang, and press for access for the High Commissioner.
For five years since the last joint statement in March 2014, the Council has failed to hold Egypt accountable for continuing systematic and widespread gross human rights violations. In the latest crackdown on peaceful protests, reports indicate that more than 2000 people have been arrested in the past week. When will the Council break its silence and convene a Special Session to address the grave and deteriorating human rights situation in Egypt?”
Signatories:
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Asian Legal Resource Centre
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- Amnesty International
- Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Human Rights Watch
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Sep 25, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ today joined other NGOs in drawing the UN Human Rights Council’s attention to the role of the Government of Cambodia in widespread human rights violations and abuses in the country, and called for renewal of the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur.
The joint NGO statement was delivered by Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada in a dialogue on the situation in Libya. The statement read as follows:
“Lawyers’ Rights Watch Canada (LRWC), the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), and the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) thank the Special Rapporteur for her reports. Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring that no one is “left behind,” necessitates equal access to remedies for rights violations within a trustworthy and independent legal system.
Cambodia has not fulfilled its treaty obligations to establish judicial independence and integrity. Civil society’s rights advocacy is continually resisted. Lawyers, defenders, journalists, politicians, or activists reporting on corruption, election irregularities, labour rights violations, illegitimate land acquisition, environmental degradation, or other rights abuses, often by businesses, are routinely subjected to official vilification; intimidation; interference with rights to expression, association, and assembly; criminalization; arbitrary detention; and even unlawful killings with impunity.
Since 2017, political opposition has been systematically suppressed, including through misuse of the judiciary. Despite the Special Rapporteur’s repeated calls for release of opposition leader Kem Sokha, he remains under court-imposed restrictions tantamount to house arrest. The Special Rapporteur has been denied visits with him contrary to Special Procedures terms of reference for country visits. In May, 25 former opposition members were summoned to court for questioning over two weeks. In September, the government threatened to arrest anyone supporting opposition politician Sam Rainsy’s return to Cambodia.
Cambodia’s responses to Special Procedures’ recommendations for the past twenty-five years have been characterized by disregard, delay, resistance, or hostility. Continued support for the Special Rapporteur’s mandate is critical to ensure that Cambodia fulfils its international human rights obligations. We request that the Council extend the mandate.”
The full written statement, including references, can be downloaded in PDF format here: UN-HRC42-Cambodia-2019
Sep 17, 2019 | Advocacy
In a statement issued today, the ICJ and other human rights groups, as well as lawyers and members of the legal profession, expressed deep concern over the increasing attacks against lawyers under President Duterte’s administration.
Find the full statement available as PDF here: Philippines-attacks against lawyers escalating-advocacy-2019-ENG
Sep 17, 2019 | Advocacy
The ICJ welcomes the final report of the FFM (Independent International Fact Finding Mission).
Having monitored justice and human rights in Myanmar for over 50 years, the ICJ has an established presence in the country, and supports justice sector actors to implement reforms necessary to protect human rights through the rule of law.
With this experience, the ICJ concurs with conclusions of the FFM and the Special Rapporteur: particularly those highlighting the pervasive damage of unchecked military power and impunity on human rights, the rule of law, and development of an inclusive democratic society.
Myanmar’s Government has failed to fulfill international law obligations to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators of rights violations. In this context, the launch of an IIMM (Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar) is necessary, and welcome. Myanmar should cooperate with the Mechanism, whose files may enable future prosecutions of individual criminals.
But this Mechanism is not a court: all States, particularly Myanmar, must work toward holding criminal trials, in competent jurisdictions, inline with international standards – noting that prosecutions target criminals, not the country.
Other immediate opportunities for Myanmar to protect human rights include: amending the National Human Rights Commission Law to expand its mandate and independence; amending laws that facilitate impunity such as the 1959 Defence Services Act; enacting an anti-discrimination law; and reviewing the 1982 Citizenship Law. These legislative reforms are urgent and possible steps that are necessary to demonstrate if the Government is genuine about its international law obligations. Any constitutional reform must also expand rights protections.
As the FFM’s mandate is ending, the ICJ would like to ask the experts: how can States best monitor and implement your recommendations, particularly related to international criminal accountability?
See also:
ICJ, Achieving Justice for Gross Human Rights Violations in Myanmar, January 2018
Terms of Reference for the UN Independent International Mechanism for Myanmar (unofficial Burmese translation), 16 January 2019, available here.
Statement to the Human Rights Council by Mr. Nicholas Koumjian, Head of the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (unofficial Burmese translation with accompanying English text), 9 September, available here.
Sep 3, 2019 | Advocacy, News
From 1 and 2 September 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of association and assembly, Clément Nyaletsossi VOULE, and lawyers and trade union representatives met and discussed challenges faced in Southeast Asia on exercising the right to freedom of association of workers.
The event was organized by the ICJ together with Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC), and supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
At the meeting’s conclusion, the participants reached a consensus to work for the development regional guidelines on freedom of association of workers in the ASEAN and agreed to form a Working Group that would be tasked to develop these guidelines. The Working Group nominated by the participants is composed of trade union representatives at the national level, lawyers, among other experts.
In his keynote speech, the Special Rapporteur emphasized that freedom of association is a fundamental right for all workers without which they lack the power to fight discrimination and injustice in the workplace. He also explained the link between the rights to freedom of association and expression, “Freedom of association is closely related to freedom of expression as they both represent opening up of space for dialogue and an enabling environment where unions can participate freely.”
The participants at the meeting were practicing lawyers from Southeast Asia focusing on labor and employment and trade unions leaders and representatives. Other participants included representatives from human rights organizations addressing business and human rights and the right to freedom of association; the ASEAN Secretariat; the International Labor Organization (ILO), the ASEAN Trade Union Council (ATUC), and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC).
“Shrinking political and civic space combined with inequality and social marginalization are key challenges at the heart of business-related human rights violations in Southeast Asia,” said Katia Chirizzi, Deputy Regional Representative for UN Human Rights. “Governments must implement their obligations to respect, protect and promote human rights in relation to business activities. It is equally critical to ensure that businesses meet their responsibilities to respect human rights.”
During the meeting, the participants also discussed the role of women in labour organizing and the additional challenges women face when they exercise the right to freedom of association in the workplace. Betty Yolanda, Asia Regional Manager of the Business and Human Rights Resource Center (BHRRC) said: “Women workers face multiple forms of discrimination and challenges. They are fighting for their rights as workers in the company and at the same time they are also fighting the patriarchy.”
The participants identified common challenges confronted in the region where workers’ rights to freedom of association face legal and physical limitations. Migrant workers, women workers and workers in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) were identified as being particularly at risk in exercising their rights.
“It is crucial that we discuss these challenges openly and with all stakeholders, particularly issues that affect those who work in the informal sector, and other vulnerable communities such as migrant workers. Special investment frameworks, special economic zones and other government-led initiatives meant to attract foreign investment potentially create new opportunities to increase transparency and accountability. Unfortunately, they are more often used to justify lowering human rights standards, or impose new restrictions that act to limit workers and communities abilities to express their grievances or exercise their rights to association,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.
Contact:
Boram Jang, International Legal Adviser, Asia & the Pacific Programme, e: boram.jang(a)icj.org
Jul 12, 2019 | Advocacy, Non-legal submissions
The ICJ joined other NGOs in an end-of-session statement, highlighting the achievements and shortfalls of the 41st Ordinary Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 24 June – 12 July 2019.
The statement, delivered by International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), reads as follows:
By renewing the mandate of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), the Council has sent a clear message that violence and discrimination against people of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities cannot be tolerated. It reaffirmed that specific, sustained and systematic attention is needed to address these human rights violations and ensure that LGBT people can live a life of dignity. We welcome the Core Group’s commitment to engage in dialogue with all States, resulting in 50 original co-sponsors across all regions. However, we regret that some States have again attempted to prevent the Council from addressing discrimination and violence on the basis of SOGI.
The Council session also sent a clear message that Council membership comes with scrutiny by addressing the situations of Eritrea, the Philippines, China, Saudi Arabia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This shows the potential the Council has to leverage its membership to become more effective and responsive to rights holders and victims.
The Council did the right thing by extending its monitoring of the situation in Eritrea. The onus is on the Eritrean Government to cooperate with Council mechanisms, including the Special Rapporteur, in line with its membership obligations.
We welcome the first Council resolution on the Philippines as an important first step towards justice and accountability. We urge the Council to closely follow this situation and be ready to follow up with additional action, if the situation does not improve or deteriorates further. We deeply regret that such a resolution was necessary, due to the continuation of serious violations and repeated refusal of the Philippines – despite its membership of the Council– to cooperate with existing mechanisms.
We deplore that Council members, such as the Philippines and Eritrea, sought to use their seats in this Council to seek to shield themselves from scrutiny, and those States[1] who stand with the authorities and perpetrators who continue to commit grave violations with impunity, rather than with the victims.
We welcome the written statement by 22 States on China expressing collective concern over widespread surveillance, restrictions to freedoms of religion and movement, and large-scale arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang. We consider it as a first step towards sustained Council attention and in the absence of progress look to those governments that have signed this letter to follow up at the September session with a resolution calling for China to allow access to the region to independent human rights experts and to end country-wide the arbitrary detention of individuals based on their religious beliefs or political opinions.
We welcome the progress made in resolutions on the rights of women and girls: violence against women and girls in the world of work, on discrimination against women and girls and on the consequences of child, early and forced marriage. We particularly welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Working Group on Discrimination Against Women and Girls under its new name and mandate to focus on the intersections of gender and age and their impact on girls. The Council showed that it was willing to stand up to the global backlash against the rights of women and girls by ensuring that these resolutions reflect the current international legal framework and to resist cultural relativism, despite several amendments put forward to try and weaken the strong content of these resolutions.
However, in the text on the contribution of development to the enjoyment of all human rights, long standing consensus language from the Vienna Declaration for Programme of Action (VDPA) recognising that, at the same time, “the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights” has again been deliberately excluded disturbing the careful balance established and maintained for several decades on this issue.
We welcome the continuous engagement of the Council in addressing the threat posed by climate change to human rights, through its annual resolution and the panel discussion on women’s rights and climate change at this session. We call on the Council to continue to strengthen its work on this issue, given its increasing urgency for the protection of all human rights.
The Council has missed an opportunity on Sudan where it could have supported regional efforts and ensured that human rights are not sidelined in the process. We now look to African leadership to ensure that human rights are upheld in the transition. The Council should stand ready to act, including through setting up a full-fledged inquiry into all instances of violence against peaceful protesters and civilians across the country.
During the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial and summary executions, States heard loud and clear that the time to hold Saudi Arabia accountable is now for the extrajudicial killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. We recall that women human rights defenders continue to be arbitrarily detained despite the calls by 36 States at the March session. We urge States to adopt a resolution at the September session to establish a monitoring mechanism over the human rights situation in the country.
We welcome the landmark report of the High Commissioner on the situation for human rights in Venezuela; in response to the grave findings in the report and the absence of any fundamental improvement of the situation in the meantime, we urge the Council to adopt a Commission of Inquiry or similar mechanism in September, to reinforce the ongoing efforts of the High Commissioner and other actors to address the situation.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate on the freedom of peaceful assembly and association. This mandate is at the core of our work as civil society and we trust that the mandate will continue to protect and promote these fundamental freedoms towards a more open civic space.
We welcome the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Belarus. We acknowledge some positive signs of re-engagement in dialogue by Belarus, and an attempted negotiation process with the EU on a potential Item 10 resolution. However, in the absence of systemic human rights reforms in Belarus, the mandate and resolution process remains an essential tool for Belarusian civil society. In addition, there are fears of a spike in violations around upcoming elections and we are pleased that the resolution highlights the need for Belarus to provide safeguards against such an increase.
We welcome the renewal of the quarterly reporting process on the human rights situation in Ukraine. However, we also urge States to think creatively about how best to use this regular mechanism on Ukraine to make better progress on the human rights situation.
The continued delay in the release of the UN database of businesses engaged with Israeli settlements established pursuant to Council resolution 31/36 in March 2016 is of deep concern. We join others including Tunisia speaking on behalf of 65 states and Peru speaking on behalf of 26 States in calling on the High Commissioner to urgently and fully fulfil this mandate as a matter of urgency and on all States to cooperate with all Council mandates, including this one, and without political interference.
Numerous States and stakeholders highlighted the importance of the OHCHR report on Kashmir; while its release only a few days ago meant it did not receive substantive consideration at the present session, we look forward to discussing it in depth at the September session.
Finally, we welcome the principled leadership shown by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, in pursuing accountability for individual victims of acts of intimidation and reprisals under General Debate Item 5, contrasting with other States which tend to make only general statements of concern, and call on States to raise all individual cases at the interactive dialogue on reprisals and intimidation in the September session.
(text in italics was not read out due to the limited time)
Signatories:
- International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
- Amnesty International
- ARTICLE 19
- Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
- Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
- Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies
- Center for Reproductive Rights
- CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
- DefendDefenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
- Franciscans International
- Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
- Human Rights House Foundation
- Human Rights Watch
- International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
- International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
- International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA)
[1] States who voted against the resolution on Eritrea: Bahrain, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, India, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Philippines and Pakistan.
States who voted against the resolution on the Philippines: Angola, Bahrain, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Hungary, Iraq, India, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and the Philippines.
